Would have expected something better from a well-lit, fairly high-res frontal portrait.

Hell, I barely recognize that photo. They mess with facial.proportions quite a bit in those magazine shots. Of course, these are probably also the kind of samples bring drawn from, which just complicates things even more.

Presumably it could take a dozen or so shots over the course of a few seconds and improve accuracy.

I agree. Photos like the underwent Phtoshop edit quite a lot.

Also I think the hair mess up the algorithm a bit. I think it has been tested (and article written about) defeating current facial recognition program with facial hair, including edward furlong cover one eye emo look for terminator 2.

Did you all see the picture at the top of the article?Not on a bet. Maybe in some other form factor but certainly not this.I would just as soon walk around in public with toilet paper dangling 6 feet behind me.

Hell, I barely recognize that photo. They mess with facial.proportions quite a bit in those magazine shots. Of course, these are probably also the kind of samples bring drawn from, which just complicates things even more.

Presumably it could take a dozen or so shots over the course of a few seconds and improve accuracy.

I agree. Photos like the underwent Phtoshop edit quite a lot.

Also I think the hair mess up the algorithm a bit. I think it has been tested (and article written about) defeating current facial recognition program with facial hair, including edward furlong cover one eye emo look for terminator 2.

You guys are really clutching at straws here. The only Photoshopping on a face would be some smoothing of the skin, the fundamental proportions (eyes, nose, mouth) are unchanged - there's no point paying a celeb for a cover shot and then making her look unrecognisable (...)

This was actually the best picture of her I could find on the first page of Google's results - straight-on frontal shot with balanced lighting illuminating the whole face. If all it takes is one strand of hair across a cheek to defeat facial recog then this field is nothing but a crap-shoot.

Anybody who things this is a good idea , seek help. Yeah, Lets make it easier to spy on everyone by just making society the surveillance mechanism.I cant believe how many short sighed people cant see how easy this things can be abused.

I love debating this topic with myself because I'm a huge proponent of technology, and I'm also a huge advocate of a persons right to privacy.

I also know we absolutely need to get in front of this issue because like it or not facial recognition is coming.

Technology wise the killer feature of wearable technology is ALWAYS on, and always recognizing objects, faces (in a public database, or your own private database), and even events (gun fire, car accident, etc).

To me the beauty of the technology is to augment ones own intelligence. To use it to overcome our own limitations when it comes to remembering faces, or remembering events that unfold too quickly for our mind to remember. It's absolutely essential that the devices are always processing information.

What I'm absolutely dead set again is any kind of automatic opt-in into a public facial recognition database. Being part of a public database should be your OWN decision. Something you decide is useful to you, and you want to be identifiable by complete strangers.

Private individuals should have the right to add someone they know to their own personal database. So they can use it to augment their own ability to attach names to faces. I know I'm horrible at this, and a HUGE weakness I have.

Private companies should be able to add you (only with permission) to their database. For example if I want Subway to always remember me, and always remember what I order. Just to make life easier for me.

Private spaces should have the right to completely disable things like Google Glass when patrons enter their establishment. There are a lot of places where people simply don't want to be recognized at.

Basically, if google glass can facial recognize and pick me out of some kinda database..

I'll be ripping glass off the head of anyone who looks at me, and crushing it

And how will that help? It is more likely to propagate your picture through the network as they will try 'recognise' you from further away to take defensive measures.

I think if you want to avoid facial recognition, get into face paint or cosplay. Make each day different. Mostly because it is already here and we are talking about it after the fact when domestic use is almost available.

Commercial use is already out there. The majority of the concerns are already implemented and are being utilised. What we haven't seen is the benefit to Joe Blow.

My first inclination when reading about Google Glass and facial recognition was to start wearing a balaclava outside if it ever really took off and became as ubiquitous as cell phones. But I quickly realized it's just as bad. Everybody stares at the man in the mask.

The answer is in Darkman. We need some kind of disposable skin mask that looks natural and is easy to apply.

The time has come for a facial recognition arms race.

On a more seroius/practical note, people could try to make facial recognition more difficult by doing what is often done now, always wearing hats (scarves for women) and sunglasses in public.

And I'm sure this will eventually be a business opportunity (and a new fashion statement) to sell larger hats and sunglasses to help cover one's face.

There are some people who cannot recognize faces. The condition is called face blindness. Google's ban likely places it in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sorry, but the ADA has nothing to do with this. There are many valid and legal reasons these won't be allowed in many work places. Hostile work environment. Potential HIPAA violations. Safety regulations and OSHA. The list goes on.

It's a computer with a display and a camera. Any place that has security concerns with Google Glass also needs to ban smart phones (and even legacy cell phones that have a camera). There is no difference in threat between them.

Basically, if google glass can facial recognize and pick me out of some kinda database..

I'll be ripping glass off the head of anyone who looks at me, and crushing it

And how will that help? It is more likely to propagate your picture through the network as they will try 'recognise' you from further away to take defensive measures.

I think if you want to avoid facial recognition, get into face paint or cosplay. Make each day different. Mostly because it is already here and we are talking about it after the fact when domestic use is almost available.

Commercial use is already out there. The majority of the concerns are already implemented and are being utilised. What we haven't seen is the benefit to Joe Blow.

A better solution is to wear an IR emitting piece of clothing that blinds the camera.

Anybody who things this is a good idea , seek help. Yeah, Lets make it easier to spy on everyone by just making society the surveillance mechanism.I cant believe how many short sighed people cant see how easy this things can be abused.

I think you are underestimating people's awareness of potential abuse; a lot of us are aware but recognise that the problems are already here and Glass doesn't alter it that much. It does make some of the benefits available to everyday people so why not utilise it? The potential issues aren't going away just because Glass doesn't take off.

The technology is already out there and growing fast, for all the wrong reasons and only a few of the beneficial reasons. How do you put that jack back in the box?

I could definately see glass banned atleast in some countries if google don't find a way to enforce no facial recognition.

Maybe, but there is no way they could truly enforce it because there will always be a way around that. I mean I guess it could be a big deal especially if hooked into a network with massive amounts of stored facial data. Really though that is something that is bound to come living in an age of technology.As with anything it could be good or bad depending on how people use it.

If they do decide to actually try and enforce it, it will only ensure the people using it are using it for malicious reasons. They might not be so quick to do so if they know they're being watched right back.

if this company is from the usa, and the database is stored on a US server that makes every glass user a defacto spy for the US government, especially considering the latest revelations? so using glass in a country other than the USA means there is a potential for arrest, and life in prison or execution.

Basically, if google glass can facial recognize and pick me out of some kinda database..

I'll be ripping glass off the head of anyone who looks at me, and crushing it

And how will that help? It is more likely to propagate your picture through the network as they will try 'recognise' you from further away to take defensive measures.

I think if you want to avoid facial recognition, get into face paint or cosplay. Make each day different. Mostly because it is already here and we are talking about it after the fact when domestic use is almost available.

Commercial use is already out there. The majority of the concerns are already implemented and are being utilised. What we haven't seen is the benefit to Joe Blow.

A better solution is to wear an IR emitting piece of clothing that blinds the camera.

Anybody who things this is a good idea , seek help. Yeah, Lets make it easier to spy on everyone by just making society the surveillance mechanism.I cant believe how many short sighed people cant see how easy this things can be abused.

I think you are underestimating people's awareness of potential abuse; a lot of us are aware but recognise that the problems are already here and Glass doesn't alter it that much. It does make some of the benefits available to everyday people so why not utilise it? The potential issues aren't going away just because Glass doesn't take off.

The technology is already out there and growing fast, for all the wrong reasons and only a few of the beneficial reasons. How do you put that jack back in the box?

Hypercritically, Larry Page mocked the idea of privacy invasion at same even saying "people won't 'collapse in terror' when someone uses Glass in a bathroom.

Typically Google, all privacy is reserved for themselves, all of us, we are just over reacting.

How does that not make the point for the argument? The people promoting these pervasive tech are very aware of the potential abuses it can bring so limit its use in a specific location for a specific time.

Schools and businesses banned camera phones (see, for instance, this 2004 story). Companies like General Motors and Texas Instruments banned or restricted the use of camera phones citing the possibility of violating the privacy of coworkers and stealing company data. I can recall stories of the new horror in schools with students sending photos of each other without even leaving the school grounds.

Today? I'd say camera phones are a complete non-issue. I anticipate the same path for Glass and devices like it.

There are many differences. This guy tells us it might be technically impossible to opt out (which is bull), but if that was the case they wouldn't just have a picture of you, which is just that: a picture. Suppose these things and similar tech becomes ubiquitous and they become linked with the internet in general. Imagine people getting an instant Google search of your name and possible location as soon as they look at you. Imagine Facebook and how people are good at keeping them open to everyone. Now link the two and anyone who even looks at those people get everything on them the Internet can dig up. Yes it's true you can look up those things on your own, but good luck in finding a stranger on the internet based on the face alone. Because this is face recognition, not just "oh look there's a face". It links persons to faces, something that is very hard to do unless you know them, or stalk them.

So yeah I don't think this has any future in it. At least I hope not. Google Glass have some stuff I like (a HUD would be cool), but I don't want that used on people.

Also, how in the world does his memory work? Does he need a HUD to tell him how good a friend a person is? "Oh hi ..... um wait there's some lag here, the net must be clogged haha. Ah here we go! Hi Daniel! Sorry I can't partake in witty conversation right now but I was sort of looking at porn and they're not good at multitasking. Just hold on.. Yeah there we go, so how about the game last night huh?"

Basically, if google glass can facial recognize and pick me out of some kinda database..

I'll be ripping glass off the head of anyone who looks at me, and crushing it

Hooray. The douche contingent has chimed in.

Assault and battery and destruction of personal property (the value of which is enough to make it a felony), the adult way of dealing with any situation. Enjoy your anonymity in prison. You had better hope that the guard doing your cavity searches isn't wearing Glass. That's one data point Google doesn't need! (although, let's face it, it's Google, they probably already have it)!

Let me guess, you wrote this post from your Glass?

You want to see real douchebaggery? Stand behind me wearing Glass while I'm at the ATM.

Glass will be so socially unacceptable, even the most wretched, hard core, turbo douchelords will not be able to wear it public. The shunning will be too great. Just like the midlife crisis, Miata-driving asshats of today wear their bluetooth earpieces everywhere, so too will Google Glass be relegated to the same crowd...

Which is unfortunate in way... cause I probably won't get to ever see the look on someone's face as as their glass gets ground into the pavement. (Whether I'm doing the grinding or not)

Anybody who things this is a good idea , seek help. Yeah, Lets make it easier to spy on everyone by just making society the surveillance mechanism.I cant believe how many short sighed people cant see how easy this things can be abused.

I think you are underestimating people's awareness of potential abuse; a lot of us are aware but recognise that the problems are already here and Glass doesn't alter it that much. It does make some of the benefits available to everyday people so why not utilise it? The potential issues aren't going away just because Glass doesn't take off.

The technology is already out there and growing fast, for all the wrong reasons and only a few of the beneficial reasons. How do you put that jack back in the box?

Glass will be so socially unacceptable, even the most wretched, hard core, turbo douchelords will not be able to wear it public. The shunning will be too great. Just like the midlife crisis, Miata-driving asshats of today wear their bluetooth earpieces everywhere, so too will Google Glass be relegated to the same crowd...

Which is unfortunate in way... cause I probably won't get to ever see the look on someone's face as as their glass gets ground into the pavement. (Whether I'm doing the grinding or not)

I'm more of the "anyone wearing these gets nothing but public ridicule and disparagement from me" type. Maybe a constant middle finger at their face. Maybe I'll end up creating my own internet meme (hey, there's that guy who flips glass wearers off!!!), which would be cool actually; but at least I'd never go to jail.

The difference with a cell phone is that to take pictures or video, you have to obviously take the unit out, hold it up, and point it at people. Anybody who does that (in my direction) gets a finger right now, too. No difference. It doesn't actually happen that much, to tell the truth.

I also don't see the social acceptability of these. Imagine a first date--could you ever wear these things?!? Would anybody who wears these a majority of the time ever have dates at all? Shit, I'd imagine most women (or girls, depending on age) would freak out at the idea of having a seriously personal encounter potentially recorded. What about business meetings? (And I'm not talking about Google conferences--I'm talking about real meetings where people are discussing confidential information.) What about just talking casually with friends or family members? I can imagine the frequency of "Take those damn things off you myopic dumbass!" comments from people close to you who don't feel the love.

I can see certain nerds who want to think they're like Data on STNG using this; or I can actually see the usefulness of these for someone who wants to record something like a hang glide session. But in day-to-day life? Nope.

Hell, I barely recognize that photo. They mess with facial.proportions quite a bit in those magazine shots. Of course, these are probably also the kind of samples bring drawn from, which just complicates things even more.

Presumably it could take a dozen or so shots over the course of a few seconds and improve accuracy.

I agree. Photos like the underwent Phtoshop edit quite a lot.

Also I think the hair mess up the algorithm a bit. I think it has been tested (and article written about) defeating current facial recognition program with facial hair, including edward furlong cover one eye emo look for terminator 2.

You guys are really clutching at straws here. The only Photoshopping on a face would be some smoothing of the skin, the fundamental proportions (eyes, nose, mouth) are unchanged - there's no point paying a celeb for a cover shot and then making her look unrecognisable (...)

This was actually the best picture of her I could find on the first page of Google's results - straight-on frontal shot with balanced lighting illuminating the whole face. If all it takes is one strand of hair across a cheek to defeat facial recog then this field is nothing but a crap-shoot.

You've got to be kidding. I saw a special once about how society is being trained away from natural beauty. The photoshoppers who work for these magazines demoed how they will move the mouth a few mm, raise the cheekbones, move the head a bit to make the neck look longer, in addition to the normal airbrush stuff. No straws here, they actually do that.

I'm not making excuses for the software. Just pointing out that it's hard to map a professionally photoshopped glamour image to a real-life face, and vice versa. Which could be catastrophic for celeb matches in general, whether it be that the source material used by the software is altered, or you're trying to match altered photos to source material that is genuine.

He has some nice ideas, but it's going to take a while until google glass becomes usable by the majority of people. As a matter of fact that might not happen very soon like in the next five to ten years.

Give any device time and it will have a chance to gain universal appeal. There used to be a time when cell phones were disparaged for "allowing everyone to hear your call" when you used it... fast forward to present day and they are seen and used everywhere now.

lol please stop saying this is equivalent to a cellphone. This is a bluetooth headset at best, maybe it's just a betamax.

I can see certain nerds who want to think they're like Data on STNG using this; or I can actually see the usefulness of these for someone who wants to record something like a hang glide session. But in day-to-day life? Nope.

How would this work if you don't use social networking? When a person runs facial recognition on you what comes up? Your name might be tagged in some photo on Facebook but there is no other information.

It all depends on the sources of information.

Already there is public information that is tied to databases outside of social networks;- For instance my best friend has tried his best to not make his identity public. But if I do a ZABA seach using his name, I can find his address and names of his nearest relatives.

Why? One possible reason is that he owns a house.Another is that he has a professional license. And another is that he graduated from a couple of universities.

Also, because of his type of employment, a local newspaper did a brief article about his job (available online).

* Databases that anyone can use, compile personal information about us.Media can do stories about us.Then with face recognition the person's picture can be linked to this personal database/media information.

Where would the images come for the facial recognition software besides social network sites?Could private companies get hold of drivers license or passport photos?I'm not sure but the goverment obviously could.

So, with Google Glass someone could wait outside the home of my best friend (known information)until he arrives and is recognized by face recognition software.

This would be a quicker way for people who you don't want to see to track you down.

Many of you sound like the teetotalers who enjoyed sipping their opium tea whilst chitchatting about how to advance their alcohol prohibition campaign. It's new technology and most of you (us) are getting old, and it weirds us out a bit. Privacy, like security, is something that exists mostly conceptually and not in reality. Augmented vision is *going to become mainstream* whether you like it or not. And you'll find that people just won't care about keeping things "private" since so much more will be out in the open anyway. Eavesdropping and other privacy invasions will lose their appeal.

Hell, I barely recognize that photo. They mess with facial.proportions quite a bit in those magazine shots. Of course, these are probably also the kind of samples bring drawn from, which just complicates things even more.

Presumably it could take a dozen or so shots over the course of a few seconds and improve accuracy.

I agree. Photos like the underwent Phtoshop edit quite a lot.

Also I think the hair mess up the algorithm a bit. I think it has been tested (and article written about) defeating current facial recognition program with facial hair, including edward furlong cover one eye emo look for terminator 2.

You guys are really clutching at straws here. The only Photoshopping on a face would be some smoothing of the skin, the fundamental proportions (eyes, nose, mouth) are unchanged - there's no point paying a celeb for a cover shot and then making her look unrecognisable (...)

This was actually the best picture of her I could find on the first page of Google's results - straight-on frontal shot with balanced lighting illuminating the whole face. If all it takes is one strand of hair across a cheek to defeat facial recog then this field is nothing but a crap-shoot.

You've got to be kidding. I saw a special once about how society is being trained away from natural beauty. The photoshoppers who work for these magazines demoed how they will move the mouth a few mm, raise the cheekbones, move the head a bit to make the neck look longer, in addition to the normal airbrush stuff. No straws here, they actually do that.

I'm not making excuses for the software. Just pointing out that it's hard to map a professionally photoshopped glamour image to a real-life face, and vice versa. Which could be catastrophic for celeb matches in general, whether it be that the source material used by the software is altered, or you're trying to match altered photos to source material that is genuine.

Kinda knew this but never really paid attention to it. Isn't this the flaw in facial recognition? Rather than try minimise the numbers of versions of yourself out there, upload numerous incorrect pictures of you to provide such a wide diversity of possibilities that it could be anyone? Slowly morph you face from one possibility to another?

How would this work if you don't use social networking? When a person runs facial recognition on you what comes up? Your name might be tagged in some photo on Facebook but there is no other information.

It all depends on the sources of information.

Already there is public information that is tied to databases outside of social networks;- For instance my best friend has tried his best to not make his identity public. But if I do a ZABA seach using his name, I can find his address and names of his nearest relatives.

Why? One possible reason is that he owns a house.Another is that he has a professional license. And another is that he graduated from a couple of universities.

Also, because of his type of employment, a local newspaper did a brief article about his job (available online).

* Databases that anyone can use, compile personal information about us.Media can do stories about us.Then with face recognition the person's picture can be linked to this personal database/media information.

Where would the images come for the facial recognition software besides social network sites?Could private companies get hold of drivers license or passport photos?I'm not sure but the goverment obviously could.

So, with Google Glass someone could wait outside the home of my best friend (known information)until he arrives and is recognized by face recognition software.

This would be a quicker way for people who you don't want to see to track you down.

The inclusion of face recognition, really the inclusion of Glass at all, is entirely superfluous and represents additional effort and risk of failure.

Scott - What, are you feeding him? Why don't you just kill him?

Dr. Evil - No, Scott. I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in﻿ an easily escapable situation involving an overly-elaborate and exotic death

Balaban said that his interest in wearable technology was inspired by one specific occasion. He found himself at a technology company, talking to a visitor who turned out to be an executive at a well-known financial firm. (He declined to name who it was.)

“I found out later that it was somebody relatively well-known in their field,” he said. “I think that would be a fantastic experience to not only understand who you're talking to but to bring context to a conversation.

I'm sure this visitor is thinking how great it could be to be targeted by strangers all the time for the sake of their financial interests.

I foresee a time when folks will have to pay to "opt out" of these facial recognition databases, similar to having unlisted phone numbers. What a great business opportunity.

Ah, but there's the rub. When your Google Glass identifies everyone around you, except for one person that's paid handsomely to be removed from the database, has he truly maintained anonymity?

Car? Car? Really? I've had it with these mama-fracking cars on this mama-fracking planet! What an amazingly backwater analogy to make! I had to read the article just to see the context of this quote and I'm still confused ^^

I'm not making excuses for the software. Just pointing out that it's hard to map a professionally photoshopped glamour image to a real-life face, and vice versa.

What you're failing to do is provide any evidence that the image has been photoshopped in a way that disrupts the basic proportions of the face. As I said before, the fundamental requirement of a celebrity cover photo is precisely that it's recognisable. Hypothetical suppositions about Photoshop don't constitute an argument.